Introduction
In the case of Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise v. Pradeep Kabra[i], the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) examined whether the tax dues claimed by the Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise* *(‘Appellant’), should be treated as secured operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).
Brief Facts
The National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) vide order dated 13.09.2023 approved the resolution plan (‘Plan’) of M/s. Cengres Tiles Limited, the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’).
The Appellant challenged this order before the NCLAT, arguing that the Plan allocated only Rs. 1,00,000 against its admitted tax claim of Rs. 11,76,90,942.
The Appellant contended that it should have been treated as a secured operational creditor (‘OC’), entitled to the same rights as that of the other secured OCs relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in State Tax Officer vs. Rainbow Papers Limited[ii] and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer [iii].
On the contrary, the resolution professional (‘Respondent’) maintained that the Appellant’s claim was rightly classified as operational debt, asserting that Central Excise dues are not recognised as secured dues under statutory provisions.
Held
The NCLAT affirmed that the Appellant’s claim was rightly treated as operational debt and not as secured debt in accordance with s. 30(2)(b) of the IBC.
While s. 11E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and s. 82 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provide priority to tax dues; the NCLAT clarified that these provisions do not override the IBC, which governs claim distribution in insolvency proceedings.
The NCLAT also referred to prior decisions in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala[iv] and State Tax v. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd.[v]. These rulings established that claims of tax authorities are operational debts, and OCs are entitled to payment per s. 30(2)(b) of the IBC, following the waterfall mechanism under s. 53(1).
Hence, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the NCLT’s approval of the Plan.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the conflict between tax laws and the IBC regarding the treatment of government tax dues in insolvency proceedings. While tax statutes designate tax dues as a first charge, the IBC’s waterfall mechanism under s. 53 governs the priority of claims.
The NCLAT reaffirmed that government tax dues do not automatically override the priority rights of secured financial creditors within the IBC framework. By upholding the treatment of the Appellant’s claim as operational debt, the ruling reinforces the IBC’s supremacy in insolvency resolution, ensuring that all creditors, including government authorities, are subject to the same structured insolvency process.
End Notes
[i] NCLAT, New Delhi CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 844 of 2024 (23.01.2025); 2025 SCC OnLine NCLAT 35.
[ii] (2023) 9 SCC 545.
[iii] AIR 2023 SC 5636.
[iv] CA(AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 346 of 2021.
[v] CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 246 of 2022.
Authored by Purvi Garg, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
More Insights
22 Jun 2026
8
Min Read
Claim Admission Is Not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.
06 Apr 2026
5
Min Read
Minority Exit under S. 66: The Supreme Court on Fairness, Valuation, and the Limits of Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd. clarifies the contours of fairness under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. It reinforces a market-based approach to valuation, affirms the permissibility of DLOM, and underscores judicial deference in the absence of oppression, marking a significant shift in minority exit jurisprudence.
12 Nov 2025
14
Min Read
A Bird’s Eye View of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Framework for Personal Guarantors under the IBC with Recent Judicial Developments
A concise overview of the personal insolvency and bankruptcy framework for personal guarantors under the IBC, with key NCLAT and NCLT rulings shaping the law. This piece explains initiation, moratoriums, repayment plans, creditor rights, bankruptcy triggers, and the 2025 Amendment Bill, offering a clear snapshot of the evolving jurisprudence and its practical implications for stakeholders.